+1.  The process must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. 

Best/Pozdrav Danko Jevtovic

From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:39 PM
To: Tijani <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org
Subject: [At-Large] Re: ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications

Dear Colleagues,

I find myself in full agreement with Tijani.
The Objections Procedure is a very significant responsibility that needs to be performed flawlessly.
The last time we filed an objection after a long and thorough process, I was the ALAC Chair, and I measured the impact of the objection when I had a face to face meeting with the ICANN Legal Counsel at the ICANN Offices in Los Angeles. These things are not matters to be taken lightly, especially if an applicant has already spent large sums of money to reach the point of application. This is big business and is very competitive. Thus we cannot, under any circumstance, risk anyone being able to influence a potential objection to an application if they have a conflict of interest.

Our community consists of a lot of volunteers that have absolutely no business with gTLDs. We also have many who have an interest, whether they or their organisation derive part of their income from consulting, or work for companies that have something to do with domain names, whether a reseller, registry, registrar, or brand protection, or even domain name statistics or run a publication that deals with domain names, in which they might be approached to influence on the objection process.

The modus operandi of gARG members should be: "If in doubt, resign."

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 05/05/2025 18:18, Tijani via At-Large wrote:

Dear OFB and ALAC members,

On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you.

But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision:

    I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. 

I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections.

I do believe that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. 

For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph).

I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected.

This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest.

In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced.  

Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon.

Tijani